# Can we reapply the Pathfinder 2e tag to this Pathfinder 2e question?

Razzle-Dazzle and success vs Blindness is asking about two Pathfinder 2e features, linking to the Pathfinder 2e reference document for both features (2e.aonprd.com; the system is also highlighted at the top of the page). I added the tag since it was contextually clear what game the question was asking about, and then edit was rolled back. There are currently four close votes on this question with a comment requesting information about the system.

Can we apply the tag to this question and keep it open / reopen it if it's closed?

## 1 Answer

### The system is utterly clear and we should add it

András has been asking PF2e questions lately, and this question even links to material from that system. This is extremely similar to questions linking to D&D Beyond. The system is undeniably clear and András clearly knows how the site works and just forgot to add the tag (I have done this myself as well in the past).

• Why did you edit it out then? Was there any specific reason? – Baskakov_Dmitriy May 31 at 21:04
• @Baskakov It is simply policy to do so: "The question asker must explicitly state the game system (and edition, for games with multiple editions) that they’re asking about." – Medix2 May 31 at 21:06
• I did forget, corrected now – András May 31 at 21:11
• One of the most recent discussions of it seems to have "let experts be experts" as the highest-upvoted answer. See this Meta too. – Baskakov_Dmitriy May 31 at 21:12
• @Baskakov Your first question is explicitly and exclusively about the phrase 5e and absolutely nothing else. It is a very specific exception to the general policy, which is described, in its entirety, in the link i provided earlier. The second link you've provided is evidence only of how votes haves changed over time. The original question states: – Medix2 May 31 at 21:13
• "After 3 months, the community's highest voted answer is sitting at +54/-22 and advocates for not changing the policy according to the moderators' proposal, which ranks below it in score at +47/-22. As the community failed to achieve a consensus to change the status quo, we will continue to enforce the policy as we have in the past. Separate refinements made notwithstanding." This has not changed, and no number of votes made after that moment will change this. The vote order may have changed, but the policy decidedly has not. – Medix2 May 31 at 21:13
• So you know the policy, disagree with it, and were making a point by following it when it was clearly wrong? – András May 31 at 21:25
• @András We have to follow it. It is, quite literally, policy – Medix2 May 31 at 21:25
• I mean ... nobody forces us to make these edits. We do not, in fact, have to do them if they are not consistent with what we believe is best for the site. While I work to make sure the affirmative actions I do take help the site work better, nobody's forcing me to do them and I can choose not to take action. (In other words, I do not have to roll back an edit if I don't want to.) Meanwhile, I can take community sentiment on board as guidance for the actions I do take. I took the linked post of "let experts be experts" as guidance for me to add the tag that was obviously indicated. – doppelgreener May 31 at 22:20
• – Vynce Jun 9 at 6:35
• @Medix2, you do not even have to follow the law. There might be consequences, but you can always decide that you rather take those. – András Jun 9 at 7:27
• That said, as @András mentioned, we are free to break the law and face whatever in the world the consequences are. I have been, for a long time, very afraid of doing so because I felt like it incentivized or would lead to totally anarchy and edit wars. I am now less sure of this and could see active refusal to obey the policy as being a statement of sorts or at least as not being inherently bad. You are free to do what you want and face the consequences of your actions, but the policy is fully detailed in the question I linked above: "The question asker must explicitly state the game system" – Medix2 Jun 9 at 11:48
• @Medix2 First, the "don't guess the system policy" explainer meta does not define the policy in full. For example, it does not even cover the very real practice of making case-by-case metas to examine things, which even the answer in favor of keeping the policy brought up. Secondly: of course our votes matter! They always matter. Why the heck would they not matter? Who else is making and deciding the policy here if not us? That's the community's entire job. Don't tell us our votes don't matter, please, or you're even disenfranchising your own decision-making power. Your votes matter. – doppelgreener Jun 13 at 13:16
• I have not been part of many of those discussions, and I sure have not gone and said anything along the lines of "yes, it would be a problem to reflect vote totals in our policy, so a significant shift in how people are voting cannot change policy". If we changed it every time a single answer was one vote ahead while they were neck-and-neck, that would not be sound decision-making, but a large gulf and established trend is exactly what had us decide to keep the policy last time & it's also a fair basis on which to say the community's will has changed, and how we operate should reflect that. – doppelgreener Jun 13 at 14:36
• Ok, discussion here seems to have shifted over to a unresolved topic, and due to the nature of comments and short references to facets and issues it's generating a lot of misunderstanding. How to handle the seen change in votes has so far been arbitrated by the mods, and we'll apologize for the fuller discussion on that being late. I'll suggest moving any further effort there. – Someone_Evil Mod Jun 13 at 15:42